![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Herbert Pocket" wrote in message ...
Agreed, it is hard to pick out any outstanding Allied failures at the macroscopic level, though this is probably a consequence of knowing (with 20:20 hindsight) that the Allies were ultimately victorious. Snip In no particular order: A) Earlier recognition of aerial bombing inaccuracies, and development of improved assessment, equipment & training (with reference to the RAF's poor performance in early bombing missions and the general misbelief that the job was being well done). Herbert Pocket, Your point A) isn't any scraping the barrel by any means. The Allies wasted immense resources on bombers and strategic bombing. If Britain, and the Allies, had cut out four engined bombers in order to have a large increase in top fighters and a boost to strong, fast,and long-ranged 2 engined bombers: Then Germany would have had a harder time much sooner. Hopefully, I'm not reading to much into your sugggestion, I have long put forward similar notion that most of the strategic bombing was a waste, or it could have been done with much less and even better. During the Summer of 1940 the Allies could have had more fighters and more fuel, and have had the bombers on lower level missions cutting up Germans energy and transport. All strategic bombing could have, and should have, been done by long ranged fighter-bombers, and fast 2-engined bombers, and 100% of the effort shoud have been against German military targets, energy, and transport. IN 1947 the USAAF stated that 95% of startegic bombing reasouces were wasted, only 5% of the strategic bombing effort was worthwhile. But Christ, that 5% was a knock-out! Viturally, all the crippling damage done by strategic air attack was done by long-ranged fighter bombers and 2-engined bombers attacking at low altitude, and almost no serious damage was done by the wasteful other line. One hundred Mustangs each with a single 1,000lbs bomb, flying in low in order to lay down 50+ direct hits on railline is very troublesome to the GErmans, and did I mention the destoyed and badly damaged locomotives, loads, and other equipment, and the need for Germany then to disperse AAA? The Allies can put down 500 fighter-bomb sorties like that a day in the Rhur by 1943 and sleep in to boot. John Freck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
George III of Britain vs. George II of America | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 5 | July 5th 04 08:36 AM |
U.S. airmen playing hardball as American game grows in Britain, By Ron Jensen, Stars and Stripes | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | May 24th 04 03:30 AM |
Britain Reveals Secret Weapon - Chicken Powered Nuclear Bomb ! | Ian | Military Aviation | 0 | April 2nd 04 03:18 PM |
Battle of Britain fighters | Tony Williams | Military Aviation | 1 | February 14th 04 07:46 AM |
Why did Britain win the BoB? | Grantland | Military Aviation | 79 | October 15th 03 03:34 PM |